Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    September 22, 2010 4:30pm-5:00pm PST

5:30 pm
request? >> no, i am not rescinding, buying here to speak tonight on this but in discussion, one of the options was that we could request a continuance to this hearing said that i could have available to me the revised plans which are in the planning department and cannot be viewed or seen by anyone. >> none of your comments went to the jurisdiction? >> this is just to discuss the rescheduling. >> we can hear from the permit holders next. >> hello, i'm the owner of 911
5:31 pm
union street. my neighbor is here as well. just so i understand, i have three minutes to speak on the continuance and then on the merits. >> we would like to submit that the request be denied. we have submitted written reasons as to why the request should be denied but the basic premise is that mr. kravitz had access to those plans. the plans are freely available from the apartment of zoning inspection. he could have called us to get a copy of the plan. our architect is here to speak on this matter and just to make sure that we did everything correctly. we engage an attorney to assist
5:32 pm
us in this process. we ask sure station request be heard as scheduled. i would like to ask my architect to come in and speak on the revisions. >> hello. the revision that was referred to was never followed through. there was some discussion about prefiguring part of each country of the decks so we applied for the permit revision and this is decided to be withdrawn. there is no revision of june 6th. >> is there any department the comments? >> is to any public comment on
5:33 pm
the rescheduling issue? >> commissioners. >> if the issue of revision is a moot than i am prepared to hear it tonight. >> can we hear from one of the department's about that issue? >> i tried to check on the tracking system on line.
5:34 pm
>> technically, the commission revision is still in the system. >> sorry to interrupt, technically it would be in the system, we applied for it but it was never reviewed by anyone. we started the process and then they had to let us know. >> we had to apply a couple of days ago to remove from the system but we had to get the letter to sign. it might be in the computer system but it was never issued nor was it paid for.
5:35 pm
>> do you have the letter? >> i don't have a letter on me. i can get it for you. >> i have another question for the architect. is the construction complete? >> the construction is complete and it has been signed off on. >> technically, until we actually have the revision that was perhaps complicated to act upon that issue, i would think that both parties would want all permits to be aggregated and rather than having piecemeal
5:36 pm
both in terms of a jurisdiction request and that this should not be rescinded. >> i agree. >> i don't agree. the parties are here, now go kart to imagine. it is hard to to imagine. it is -- it is hard to imagine. the parties are here and i don't even know if this would be a matter of convenience to decide that we would aggregate them. there are some real issues involved in the jurisdiction request that we should here since the parties are here. >> is there anything in writing that you can give?
5:37 pm
>> the president is suggesting that you write something tonight. >> i'd tend to agree. >> i'm a little confused because when i went to the appeals board i was told i should hold on because there is a permanent in the process and i can appeal this because this revises the original permit. i have been patient.
5:38 pm
i have gone online everyday and i have gone to the staff on an everyday basis. the permit was still there. much of what i plan to say is that the plans as originally submitted are insufficient and then the construction as constructed is different from that and it appears in the description of the revision has reconfigured that and it reconfigured kitchens. maybe the position of the kitchen's has been changed. if you look at the plans, the kitchen's which used to be number south, this has the visual impact on the view of the bay of san francisco.
5:39 pm
i don't understand how you can submit a plan that will reconfigure and read to a plan that was improved by the commission and then in the middle, say we changed our mind. i have no recourse and the whole point of this process is to go back to october, november, december to look at what the applicant submitted. they did not submit this. >> let us deal with the continuing request. >> i don't know if it is appropriate to speak.
5:40 pm
>> there was a scheduling request and the permit holders disagreed. they submitted a written statement explaining the disagreement that was passed on. because of a late hour of the request and the fact that the board calendar had already been issued. this is up to you to decide a set of our normal protocol. >> i fail to see how the doctor would be prejudiced. if indeed it turns out that this of the permit has been withdrawn to go ahead tonight and hear all of the arguments that the doctor brought up and had more to do with why he thinks he should be able to argue about the permit rather than why he should
5:41 pm
continue this. i still fail to see why we need to continue this. >> and permit might be requested to be withdrawn but if if we don't withdraw this, if we are testing under that permit, i have not been to the side -- i have not been there but it sounds like the revision permit is to address issues of changes in construction. if changes were made beyond the scope-of the actually approved issue, we would not allow economy until the changes were reversed or important to this permits.
5:42 pm
>> i think that clears up a lot. >> thank you. >> is there a motion? >> can we hear about the architect? is determined that has been withdrawn is work that has been done? >> no, those were minor revisions of what we were doing to the original permit. they said, well, we will have to do a revision if we change the deck. she directed us to start the process and then she changed her mind. we did not follow through with that permits. this was never issued, this was never processed, it never went
5:43 pm
through planning. this is just hanging in the system. we asked realizing that this is still shelling of and ask the permit euro to remove that. -- we realize that this is still going and we asked the department's bureau to remove that. >> was there any work done that had to do with a permit that was withdrawn? >> no. this is a proposal that was never processed. >> there is no work done? >> no, there is no work done. this has not been issued or paid for or proved -- or approved. >> it look like you're looking
5:44 pm
at the plans. do you want to comment? >> normally at the time, we don't provide this because the issue of what is contained in the plan for you but i did bring a copy primarily because the person requesting jurisdictions said he was unable to review this and i want to make sure there was at least one copy to look at. i presume that they built it in strict accordance with these plans. >> if that is the case then we
5:45 pm
should go ahead and hear it tonight. >> shall i call that motion? the motion is to deny the request. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> but like to offer you seven reasons to consider in my favor.
5:46 pm
number one, the application is not sufficient. also the applicant needed to describe all work under this and reference to plans is not sufficient. there is only a description of two separate roof decks but nothing regarding roles, gas lines, kitchens. the application is incomplete, misleading, and not sufficient. this is this a bull from three public lights away. doctors extended but the roofline decrease in the mean elevation -- structures extended above the roof line and decrease the main elevation. this application was 8 months after the original permit and
5:47 pm
after the gas lines were already installed. this confirms that it did not include all of the work to be performed. on june 3rd, the applicant completed a revision of the regional permit which is pending and as of today, it has been withdrawn. what is to be revised and how? how have the revisions been made? it is my opinion having looked at this that there has been revisions and they are not in the original permit. the project failed to meet the ceqa requirements. but this involves is an alteration of the structure constructed 50 or more years ago. this is a historical structure which contributes to the
5:48 pm
historical district. would it results in over 40 feet? this requires a shadow study. the applicant failed to complete the packet dated july 29th, 2009, which states that all exterior alterations must comply with the policies and guidelines. this requires a 30-day notification and notices and considers a position and location facing the subject property. finally, the applicant never submitted the plan to the neighborhood association of which i am a member. the application is not sufficient and they did not describe all of the work to be performed. a rigorous review for comments.
5:49 pm
thank you. >> thinking -- thank you. >> do you have specific examples? >> the details are that the applicant would not give permission. i have been reviewing the plans and what i think it's happened is that one of the kitchen structures, kitchen appliance has been changed so that the configuration blocks the view. it used to be north-south and it is east west. there's nothing in the plan about gas lines or kitchens. the gas line exclamation came
5:50 pm
after destructions were constructed. those are a key that i know of. >> are these different than what you have attached. >> we can hear from permit holders. >> the work has been complete and a final certificate of completion has been issued. i would like to speak to the fact that our view is the applications for jurisdiction request and the reasons are
5:51 pm
unfounded. it is claimed that we were required to give him a notice. that is not true. as the project has gone on, he says that he has seen things happening that are not in accordance with the plan. he went into after the work is complete. jurisdiction is a perk brit as he claims that the permit did not have sufficient information and therefore it was misleading. he has not even reviewed the plan. he did not review the plans by submitting a jurisdiction request. the kitchen was clearly set out in the plan and the gas lines
5:52 pm
are part of the original permit. we originally intended that the kitchen's be built in. they are modular, they are not fixtures can tell -- they are not fixtures. we would like specific details. >> this was reviewed by a historical planner and they looked at the drawings and said that they want to make sure that the ramblings are not available which are at taylor and union. that is why i said to these back. >> i would like to submit that
5:53 pm
this would be fundamentally unfair to grant this jurisdiction request. we have spent a considerable amount money and compliance. even if the request was granted, the subject matter of the appeal would be the review which is not a legally protected property rights. >> in my conversation, my clients were trying to be very -- >> these were approved. >> they are publicly available.
5:54 pm
he said in his statement that we did not make them available. >> could one of you address the new permit that was for his gas lines? >> that was for permanent computers. >> is there any department to comment? >> the board knows that the decks are contentious in san francisco. the planning department does limited notifications.
5:55 pm
if they are in the rear yard and have a fire wall, if they are on an noncompliant portion of the building that is required, that is based on interpretation from february of 2008 that requires a notice to the adjacent properties and should be noted that this is not one of the adjacent properties. i noticed that the subject building is built above the 40 foot height limit. this is really the first portion of the building, this would really be non compliant. this is a noncompliant portion of the roof. we have not been consistently applying this as such.
5:56 pm
if this is in the rear yard or the side yard, that it had a real impact on the neighbors. we have not contemplated applying this universally. we will review that matter further and see if that makes sense. these are substantially higher than the adjacent properties. the project is otherwise code complained when we review this. >> i guess he is not an adjacent property owners so we would not have received the notice.
5:57 pm
>> if -- foredecks on properties that are but a deeper brit height limit, these will not impact the immediately adjacent properties. why wouldn't the properties further out that are affected by the height be notified? >> those would be related by the view. >> the properties are directly adjacent from the buildings and -- the concern is privacy- related issues. >> yes, people have concerns.
5:58 pm
in the required rearguard and the side yard, in those kinds of situations where we feel it is appropriate to do that notice. if this is an the buildable area, it would not be required. we have a host of exemptions from the requirement and a lot of the rooftop additions are on section 311. >> the departments should look at the intensity. >> that is definitely compliant. >> i was not clear how much above the height limit. >> this is about 8 feet at the
5:59 pm
front of the property. this should be at the front of the property. . >> can you show us which? >> i think that the jurisdiction request has a property in the mind. i think that these are a couple of doors down. >> you feel as though the notice was sufficient. >> yes. >> i have a question for the rm
left
right